By Appointment Only
1652 Pandosy St., Kelowna, BC
Family and Criminal Law office located in Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
Family and Criminal Law Office

Learn moreContact us
Located at 1652 Pandosy Street, Kelowna, BC

Learn moreContact us
Our Mission

Working with you to deliver efficient and effective solutions to your family law and criminal law problems

Learn moreRequest Consultation
Family and Criminal Law Office

Mark J. Chiu Law Corporation

 Read more about Mark J. Chiu

Mark J. Chiu
Credentials

Mark holds degrees in Psychology (University of Calgary) and Law (University of Saskatchewan). He regularly attends the Justice Institute of British Columbia for additional training in family dispute resolution. He regularly appears in the Supreme Court and Provincial Court of British Columbia.

Values

Mark firmly believes in his duty to protect his client's legal interests, to dispense holistic and practical legal advice, and above all else to follow his client's instructions subject to his ethical duties as an officer of the court.

Approach

Mark seeks to resolve disputes in an efficient and effective manner, whether it be by way of quietly negotiating a settlement or resolving a case at trial.

Contact

Physical Address: 1652 Pandosy St., Kelowna, BC

Mailing Address: 210 - 347 Leon Ave., Kelowna, BC V1Y 8C7

TEL: 236.420.1823      
FAX: 236.361.4418
mark@markchiu.com

Latest Blog News

Featured: Blog News Post Title and Link

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam [...]

Month DD, YYYY
Featured: Blog News Post Title and Link

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Suspendisse varius enim in eros elementum tristique. Duis cursus, mi quis viverra ornare, eros dolor interdum nulla, ut commodo diam [...]

Month DD, YYYY
UPDATE: the treatment of "excluded" property that is gifted to the other spouse

On April 28, 2016, the British Columbia Court of Appeal provided guidance as how to treat "excluded" property that is gifted between spouses. To frame the question in practical terms: If spouse #1, who owns "excluded" property, gifts that property to the spouse #2, can spouse #1 still claim the exclusion? With the release of the decision by the Court of Appeal in the case of V.J.F. v. SK.W., 2016 BCCA 186, it appears that the answer is "no". The result is that by way of the gifting, the property that is subject to the gifting loses its excluded character and becomes "family property". The court may still then assess whether unequal division of family property would be appropriate in the circumstances.

September 29, 2019
How are oral agreements considered for Division of Property purposes?

How are oral agreements considered for Division of Property purposes? This blog post will consider the role of oral agreements pertaining to division of property only. Oral agreements pertaining to spousal support, parenting arrangements, or child support may me addressed in further blog posts. This question was considered in the case of Thomson v. Young, 2014 BCSC 799 (CanLii). In this case, the court confirmed the following: 1) that section 93 of the Family Law Act applies to written agreements only; 2) that section 95 of the Family Law Act creates an exception to the general rule stated in section 81 of the Family Law Act that on separation each spouse has equal rights to family property and equal responsibility for family debt; 3) that section 95 permits the court to consider the terms of an oral agreement when considering whether it would be appropriate to order unequal division of family property or debt, along with considering the other enumerated factors; 4) that the ordinary considerations pertaining to contractual formation are important to consider when determining whether an oral agreement has in fact been properly formed; 5) that if an oral agreement for unequal division is found not to be properly formed, then the burden remains on the person seeking for unequal division to persuade the court that unequal division is inappropriate;6) that if an oral agreement for unequal division is found to be properly formed, then the burden shifts to the person seeking for equal division to persuade the court that an unequal division would be "significantly unfair" to one of the spouses; and in addition that the "test" would be the common-law test of the court will only set aside an agreement made between spouses respecting the division of property and debt, if the division agreed to would be "substantially different" from the division that the court would order; and 7) that it is important to consider the effects of the oral agreement (if properly formed) as it relates to division of family property separately from as it relates to family debt.

September 15, 2019
Practice Areas
preferred areas of practice
Request a consultation